Comments on: Adventures in conversionland http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/ Man bites Ogre Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:55:49 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: WhiteKnight http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-261193 WhiteKnight Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:54:06 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-261193 Thank you for more information about your DVCS tests. Its interesting to hear how they compare when working with a large repository. I've just been messing around with a new Mercurial repository, so eager to more about your tests and really appreciate that you take the time to let us know how its going. Thank you for more information about your DVCS tests. Its interesting to hear how they compare when working with a large repository. I’ve just been messing around with a new Mercurial repository, so eager to more about your tests and really appreciate that you take the time to let us know how its going.

]]> By: Owen S http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-260646 Owen S Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:46:36 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-260646 Just looked it up - KDEs supposed to be migrating this month. Perhaps 1.6 incorporates changes to git-svn and co made for their migration? The KDE repos are huge - I'd imagine that the problems should all be fixed by the time KDE moves over. Just looked it up – KDEs supposed to be migrating this month. Perhaps 1.6 incorporates changes to git-svn and co made for their migration?

The KDE repos are huge – I’d imagine that the problems should all be fixed by the time KDE moves over.

]]> By: Steve http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-260633 Steve Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:04:35 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-260633 Update: Kubuntu 9.04 with Git 1.6.0 converts our repository successfully using solely git-svn (not svn2git). This is so far the only option that works - 1.6.x on Windows crashes and 1.5.x on Linux produces unreliable results. Update: Kubuntu 9.04 with Git 1.6.0 converts our repository successfully using solely git-svn (not svn2git). This is so far the only option that works – 1.6.x on Windows crashes and 1.5.x on Linux produces unreliable results.

]]> By: Steve http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-260589 Steve Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:50:21 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-260589 Yes, it's important. Many users use previous stable branches in production code, and when diagnosing issues it's imperitive to be able to bisect the history. There are also experimental branches we may want to revist later. Starting from scratch would be a major loss in terms of subsequent bugfixing on previous stables and merging of previously experimental code and is not one I'm willing to accept - I'm investigating moving because I want to streamline opereations, not make them more complex by splitting activities across 2 very different repositories. Maybe young projects with no real production users to speak of and a simplistic branch history can afford to do that, but we can't. Certainly the last 2-3 years history is essential - we could live without history before that but no DVCS allows this kind of reverse pruning because of the way the delta information is stored. Yes, it’s important. Many users use previous stable branches in production code, and when diagnosing issues it’s imperitive to be able to bisect the history. There are also experimental branches we may want to revist later. Starting from scratch would be a major loss in terms of subsequent bugfixing on previous stables and merging of previously experimental code and is not one I’m willing to accept – I’m investigating moving because I want to streamline opereations, not make them more complex by splitting activities across 2 very different repositories. Maybe young projects with no real production users to speak of and a simplistic branch history can afford to do that, but we can’t. Certainly the last 2-3 years history is essential – we could live without history before that but no DVCS allows this kind of reverse pruning because of the way the delta information is stored.

]]> By: John Burton http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-260583 John Burton Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:11:38 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-260583 Is it important to convert the history? Can't you keep old versions in the old system for reference and start a new repositoy moving forward? Is it important to convert the history? Can’t you keep old versions in the old system for reference and start a new repositoy moving forward?

]]> By: blankthemuffin http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-260517 blankthemuffin Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:01:54 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-260517 Ah yes, it looks like that indeed. I didn't really look at it before but the last commit to master is shown as Fri Aug 3 00:59:10 2007. I have v1-4 and soc07, but that's not really a useful improvement at all. No errors doesn't seem to equal no problems. That's a serious let down. Ah yes, it looks like that indeed. I didn’t really look at it before but the last commit to master is shown as Fri Aug 3 00:59:10 2007.

I have v1-4 and soc07, but that’s not really a useful improvement at all.

No errors doesn’t seem to equal no problems. That’s a serious let down.

]]> By: Owen S http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-260516 Owen S Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:54:29 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-260516 I think one of the most interesting conversions is going to be KDE going SVN -> Git. I know Gnome have already done so; I don't know if any information on how it went for them has been published online. I think one of the most interesting conversions is going to be KDE going SVN -> Git. I know Gnome have already done so; I don’t know if any information on how it went for them has been published online.

]]> By: Steve http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-260479 Steve Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:35:17 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-260479 svn2git on the converted 1.5 repository did better again, but only converted half of the branches and stopped at 2006. I'm guessing that git-svn is crashing or something - there are no errors but it definitely looks like it fell over. If I run the process again it seems to try to restart, but just goes through the branches it's already converted, says they already exist, and doesn't do any more. The bare repo at this stage is 51MB fully compressed, and since that's missing a ton of data it suggests to me that your conversion didn't finish properly either if it was only 59MB. My repo is missing any socXX- branches after soc-06 (there are 3 more years), and only goes up to v1-2 stable, missing v1-4 and v1-6, and master is definitely not the current trunk. I suspect yours is missing a fair chunk of data too - I tried to pull it to verify this but it wasn't responding. So, svn2git is definitely out, it doesn't seem reliable. svn2git on the converted 1.5 repository did better again, but only converted half of the branches and stopped at 2006. I’m guessing that git-svn is crashing or something – there are no errors but it definitely looks like it fell over. If I run the process again it seems to try to restart, but just goes through the branches it’s already converted, says they already exist, and doesn’t do any more.

The bare repo at this stage is 51MB fully compressed, and since that’s missing a ton of data it suggests to me that your conversion didn’t finish properly either if it was only 59MB. My repo is missing any socXX- branches after soc-06 (there are 3 more years), and only goes up to v1-2 stable, missing v1-4 and v1-6, and master is definitely not the current trunk. I suspect yours is missing a fair chunk of data too – I tried to pull it to verify this but it wasn’t responding.

So, svn2git is definitely out, it doesn’t seem reliable.

]]> By: Steve http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-260477 Steve Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:27:02 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-260477 I reverted to svn2git's 1.3.1 tag rather than the head and ran it again, it did more this time but still only converted about a third of the branches and left me with a master which was blatantly not the trunk - looks about 6 years old. So better, but definitely no cigar. I'm afraid if git 1.5.4 and the latest svn2git is considered too old, then something is very wrong with these tools. Last try will be doing it on the 1.5 converted svn. I reverted to svn2git’s 1.3.1 tag rather than the head and ran it again, it did more this time but still only converted about a third of the branches and left me with a master which was blatantly not the trunk – looks about 6 years old. So better, but definitely no cigar.

I’m afraid if git 1.5.4 and the latest svn2git is considered too old, then something is very wrong with these tools.

Last try will be doing it on the 1.5 converted svn.

]]> By: blankthemuffin http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/10/25/adventures-in-conversionland/comment-page-1/#comment-260476 blankthemuffin Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:22:45 +0000 http://www.stevestreeting.com/?p=2310#comment-260476 That's a pain. Damn old versions. That’s a pain. Damn old versions.

]]>